Samsung, not TSMC, still makes the Apple TV’s new single-core A5 processor (Updated)

Companies' legal disputes have yet to disrupt their chipmaking arrangement.

Apple's new, revised version of the third-generation Apple TV may look the same on the outside, but on the inside we already know that it uses a new, smaller version of the A5 system-on-a-chip. We talked a bit about the implications of this processor on Monday, but we refrained from saying anything concrete about its manufacturer. Chipworks is currently in the middle of tearing down one of these new Apple TVs, though, and they can tell us more. We don't know about the manufacturing process or architecture, but we now know that Samsung is still responsible for making the chip.

Persistent rumors have suggested that Apple is looking to move away from Samsung's chip production facilities in light of the two companies' ongoing legal troubles—Taiwan Semiconductor (TSMC) and even Intel have both been floated in recent weeks and months as potential partners. A move to another chip manufacturer still isn't out of the question, but it doesn't appear to be in work just yet.

We're still waiting on an actual die shot, but Chipworks has made a few other observations during its teardown: first, this A5's RAM is separate from the processor itself, while past A5s have used a package-on-package (PoP) design that stacked the RAM and the SoC on top of one another. This takes up a bit more space on a given device's system board, but it could be useful as a cost-saving measure. We also now know that the chip measures 6.1mm by 6.2mm, a more precise measurement than the 6mm by 6mm previously suggested.

We'll continue to monitor Chipworks' teardown as it happens, and we'll update this article as we find out more.

Update: Based on the space between the chip's transistors, Chipworks is now reporting that the new A5 is still made on Samsung's 32nm process. It seems likely, then, that despite being labeled as an A5, this chip won't have the same design (and may not have the same performance) as past chips with the same name.

Update 2: And we have our die shot. The new A5 includes just one CPU core, along with a dual-core Imagination Technologies PowerVR SGX 543MP2 GPU. This doesn't account for the entirety of the die size reduction, but we're not yet sure what else is changed.

The third-generation Apple TV's A5 has always had one of its CPU cores disabled, so performance of these revised Apple TVs should still be the same as the older models. Engineering the chip to be this much smaller will save Apple money in the long run—it can get many more of these single-core A5s out of the same silicon wafer. Designing this new chip would also take a fair amount of time, money, and effort, though.

It may be that the Apple TV is now selling in high enough numbers (and that margins on it are low enough) that the redesign was justifiable for that reason alone. It could also be the case that Apple has another product in its pipeline that needed a small, relatively inexpensive chip—of the rumors making the rounds currently, the fabled iWatch and a new, cheaper iPhone could both fit this description. We suspect this isn't the last we'll hear about this new, smaller A5.

Andrew Cunningham
Andrew has a B.A. in Classics from Kenyon College and has over five years of experience in IT. His work has appeared on Charge Shot!!! and AnandTech, and he records a weekly book podcast called Overdue. Twitter@AndrewWrites

I'm shocked, just shocked to discover that a corporation does not behave like a petulant fanboy when making business decisions. I'm more shocked that Apple and Samsung have reached a agreement that puts all their litigation to rest and allows them to efficiently split the world market for smart phones.

I'm shocked, just shocked to discover that a corporation does not behave like a petulant fanboy when making business decisions. I'm more shocked that Apple and Samsung have reached a agreement that puts all their litigation to rest and allows them to efficiently split the world market for smart phones.

I'm always amazed at how often this obvious bit of logic and common sense is lost on commenters (and apparently the writers) here.

Also, people underestimate the sheer size and siloing of a company like Samsung. Shunning Samsung's chip division just because of beefs with the mobile side is like refusing to talk to the second cousin twice removed of the person you actually had a falling out with.

They've updated the article and state that the new chip is still on Samsung's 32nm process so the size reduction is completely from a redesign and not from a new process.

I'm guessing the die reduction has come from creating a new A5 variant with a single CPU, rather than using a dual CPU version with a disabled second core. Explains why the power usage is virtually unchanged too.

So now the question becomes, why did Apple invest in a major respin at the same process node? Either they dropped some functionality or the previous version was 'rushed' and had lots of size optimization opportunities left.. Puzzling.

So now the question becomes, why did Apple invest in a major respin at the same process node? Either they dropped some functionality or the previous version was 'rushed' and had lots of size optimization opportunities left.. Puzzling.

Or they were having to fuse off perfectly good cores so often that they decided it would be worth it to spin off a smaller version. They may also have other product plans for a smaller version that we don't know about, and seeing it in the Apple TV first is just a red herring...

I'm shocked, just shocked to discover that a corporation does not behave like a petulant fanboy when making business decisions. I'm more shocked that Apple and Samsung have reached a agreement that puts all their litigation to rest and allows them to efficiently split the world market for smart phones.

I'm always amazed at how often this obvious bit of logic and common sense is lost on commenters (and apparently the writers) here.

Also, people underestimate the sheer size and siloing of a company like Samsung. Shunning Samsung's chip division just because of beefs with the mobile side is like refusing to talk to the second cousin twice removed of the person you actually had a falling out with.

We can't really report on this sort of thing without acknowledging these kinds of persistent rumors - the TSMC ones have been floating around for years now and the Intel one was reported in Reuters last week, so putting stories like this up without commenting on them paints an incomplete picture. I always try to be careful not to present them as fact or as some foregone conclusion, though.

IMO, considering alternate foundries wouldn't be a "petulant fanboy" decision on Apple's part. It's only smart for a company like Apple to be constantly evaluating its options, if just to keep its current foundry fighting to keeps its business.

They've updated the article and state that the new chip is still on Samsung's 32nm process so the size reduction is completely from a redesign and not from a new process.

I'm guessing the die reduction has come from creating a new A5 variant with a single CPU, rather than using a dual CPU version with a disabled second core. Explains why the power usage is virtually unchanged too.

I would guess it's single core as well, but you can't save 45% in die size just by cutting out one ARM core. They must have cut out extra I/O or auxiliary units (image processing for cameras, etc.) that were unused. Now how many Apple TV units do they expect to sell with this chip? Are the savings from a 32 mm^2 smaller die worth the cost of taping out a new design? I'd say they are either ready to begin marketing the Apple TV more aggressively, or they are using the chip in another low cost device.

I'm always amazed at how often this obvious bit of logic and common sense is lost on commenters (and apparently the writers) here.

Also, people underestimate the sheer size and siloing of a company like Samsung. Shunning Samsung's chip division just because of beefs with the mobile side is like refusing to talk to the second cousin twice removed of the person you actually had a falling out with.

It's quite true that Samsung has a lot to offer Apple as a foundry, but you can bet that when Apple is deciding which foundry to go with, they're considering factors such as signaling their plans to competitors and how much of the scaling benefits accrue to Apple versus its rivals.

In other words, while the Apple vs. Samsung feud obviously hasn't disqualified Samsung as a supplier, I'm sure it made other suppliers look more attractive by comparison.

They've updated the article and state that the new chip is still on Samsung's 32nm process so the size reduction is completely from a redesign and not from a new process.

I'm guessing the die reduction has come from creating a new A5 variant with a single CPU, rather than using a dual CPU version with a disabled second core. Explains why the power usage is virtually unchanged too.

I would guess it's single core as well, but you can't save 45% in die size just by cutting out one ARM core. They must have cut out extra I/O or auxiliary units (image processing for cameras, etc.) that were unused. Now how many Apple TV units do they expect to sell with this chip? Are the savings from a 32 mm^2 smaller die worth the cost of taping out a new design? I'd say they are either ready to begin marketing the Apple TV more aggressively, or they are using the chip in another low cost device.

I have to think they have something else planned with this chip. I just can't see the aTV alone hitting the type of volume they would need to make this worth while because the biggest thing holding it back is content (aka deals with the content providers) not anything Apple can control. Even if they some how magically managed to get all US content providers on board with streaming that would still only address the US market not any foreign markets.

For a higher volume part, a rumored cheaper iPhone seems like the best bet. One actually designed to be cheaper from the start instead of just sliding down last years model.

Both Apple and Samsung are playing this smart. They have clearly both taken the position "Apple is fighting with Samsung Telecommunications... let's keep this from ruining the business relationship between Apple and Samsung Semiconductor".

Considering how independent the different subsidiaries of chaebols can sometimes be, this is not a huge surprise. It would be more difficult to imagine if Samsung were more monolithic.

At this point, I would expect there are explicit handshakes between the companies regarding limiting the conflict to just Apple vs Samsung Telecommunications. I would bet that the day-to-day relationship on the semiconductors side -- pricing, engineering discussions, etc. -- are conducted without any particular animosity. This is probably especially true now that Jobs is gone. I don't see Cook being as grudge-prone as Jobs.

Fundamentally, Apple would be irrational to choose a foundry for any reason except that it were the best all around solution. Samsung would similarly be irrational to say anything to Apple except "we won't cave on the lawsuit just to keep your semiconductor business, but we'd be happy to treat your lawsuit and your semiconductor business completely separately... we'll fight the lawsuit on that side and continue to treat you as an important customer on this side."

They've updated the article and state that the new chip is still on Samsung's 32nm process so the size reduction is completely from a redesign and not from a new process.

I'm guessing the die reduction has come from creating a new A5 variant with a single CPU, rather than using a dual CPU version with a disabled second core. Explains why the power usage is virtually unchanged too.

I would guess it's single core as well, but you can't save 45% in die size just by cutting out one ARM core. They must have cut out extra I/O or auxiliary units (image processing for cameras, etc.) that were unused. Now how many Apple TV units do they expect to sell with this chip? Are the savings from a 32 mm^2 smaller die worth the cost of taping out a new design? I'd say they are either ready to begin marketing the Apple TV more aggressively, or they are using the chip in another low cost device.

I have to think they have something else planned with this chip. I just can't see the aTV alone hitting the type of volume they would need to make this worth while because the biggest thing holding it back is content (aka deals with the content providers) not anything Apple can control. Even if they some how magically managed to get all US content providers on board with streaming that would still only address the US market not any foreign markets.

For a higher volume part, a rumored cheaper iPhone seems like the best bet. One actually designed to be cheaper from the start instead of just sliding down last years model.

test for iwatch ? but I would have expected pop ram and nand to minimise pcb size unless package thickness is more important ?

test for iwatch ? but I would have expected pop ram and nand to minimise pcb size unless package thickness is more important ?

I'd think for the iWatch they'd have to aim even lower on the power usage than this as the battery size is going to be very small. Something much closer to the chip in the shuffle which is suspected to be a lower end ARM chip from Samsung and it would probably have POP ram and nand like the shuffle.

I'm shocked, just shocked to discover that a corporation does not behave like a petulant fanboy when making business decisions. I'm more shocked that Apple and Samsung have reached a agreement that puts all their litigation to rest and allows them to efficiently split the world market for smart phones.

Well since Tim Cook is the CEO this would make sense. But they already dropped some parts from Samsung already, like ipad batteries IIRC.

Would Apple ship a cheap iPhone with only one core in an era where everyone is moving to four cores?

Why not? Apple was able to make a perfectly responsive iPod Touch with a now-outdated single core processor almost 6 years ago. I'd reckon even a single core processor today would be an order of magnitude more powerful.

As long as the experience is smooth and pleasant, most customers don't give a rat's patoot about how many cores or how much RAM is packed into their gadgets.

Yes, there are constantly stories about Apple moving from Samsung to another fab, but I think it's safer to call them sheer speculation rather than true rumors. There might not seem to be a lot of difference, but I think there is.

They've updated the article and state that the new chip is still on Samsung's 32nm process so the size reduction is completely from a redesign and not from a new process.

I wonder how the people who often cry that "Apple does not innovate" will be able to reconcile this.

Can you really call an updated/modified soc an innovation ?

They have a capable design team and its a significant amount of work.But innovation ? to me that's not an innovation.

An innovation would be a new technology or a disruptive design

Maybe it might not be YOUR definition, but this is what the real definition is:

Quote:

Innovate: Make changes in something established, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products.

Sounds like innovation by the very definition to me.

Using that notion of the definition, every product launch by every company is "innovation." By that logic Samsung probably innovates far more than Apple considering they have considerably more device launches than Apple (regardless of whether this is good or bad, successful or unsuccessful). Even if you do consider this innovative, I'm not sure that's the definition you want to use in supporting Apple.

For what it is worth, some people distinguish between sustaining innovation, and disruptive innovation. When practiced well, sustaining innovation cuts off oportunities for disruptive innovation. Despite what you might read in tech blogs, and their comments, sustaining innovation tends to be better for users, because they can translate their existing knowledge to new versions of a product. Disruptive innovation is only really desirable when sustaining innovation has failed to keep pace.

All that said, I will note that the fact that this chip doesn't have package-on-package RAM. As I understand it, package-on-package is desirable for saving space, and, I'd speculate, power. Since this version uses a more conventional PCB-mounted RAM package,

From this I'd conclude that the AppleTV now drives enough volume that it is worthwhile producing chips packaged for that application, where power and space aren't as critical and/or, they are planning on using this chip in other applications where power and space aren't as constrained as they were.

Regarding the iWatch speculation--is it realistic to put a chip of this class into a wristwatch? I mean, it's basically half an iPhone 4S.

I'm guessing it'd be more of a wrist band than a watch.

But it's interesting to note, the CPU in the Pebble watch is 10mm*10mm, although significantly lower powered (a Cortex-M3 clocked at 120mhz). I wonder if Apple could drop the speed/power consumption low enough - and produce enough of these - that it's viable as a watch processor in terms of heat and cost to produce rather than use something specifically low powered. It seems simple and easy for them to produce, yet really is an iPhone-class processor.

Regarding the iWatch speculation--is it realistic to put a chip of this class into a wristwatch? I mean, it's basically half an iPhone 4S.

I'm guessing it'd be more of a wrist band than a watch.

But it's interesting to note, the CPU in the Pebble watch is 10mm*10mm, although significantly lower powered (a Cortex-M3 clocked at 120mhz). I wonder if Apple could drop the speed/power consumption low enough - and produce enough of these - that it's viable as a watch processor in terms of heat and cost to produce rather than use something specifically low powered. It seems simple and easy for them to produce, yet really is an iPhone-class processor.

Wouldn't an iWatch have a much lower resolution screen? Perhaps that would allow Apple to rip out one of the GPU cores and associated cache.

Also, don't Apple SoCs have specialized modules for processing microphone audio and camera video? Is it possible they left some of that out for AppleTV and/or iWatch versions? Or maybe modules like that wouldn't be big enough to matter?

Perhaps they always intended to use this processor, but ran into engineering problems (perhaps the software was even too slow on a single core and now they've optimised it?), so they shipped it with the other more expensive chip until this one could be finished off.